As awesome as in-flight WiFi can be, it's often unavailable. Why isn't every …

Share this story

In-flight Internet access has had its up and downs, and, yes, this article will have its share of aviation-related puns. An aborted launch by Boeing in 2004 seemed to ground the idea, but a second attempt in 2008 has remained aloft. Each day, nearly 1,100 planes—totaling 4,000 flights carrying an average of 500,000 passengers—ply their way over America while carrying WiFi gear from Aircell. Meanwhile, other providers power a few hundred planes in the US and the rest of the globe with either full Internet access or, more commonly, limited GSM-based text and data service.

Despite the volume of equipped aircraft, we're still in the early days— and the continued availability of mile-high WiFi is certainly not guaranteed. It's an expensive, long-term investment to supply consistent and usable broadband Internet service at 35,000 feet. Surveys show people want access, but it's unclear how much (or even if) they'll pay for it. Aircell says that 20 percent of passengers on equipped cross-country flights use its service, but it's mum about numbers on shorter segments.

Nonetheless, installations are only increasing at the moment, and no airline has pulled the plug in more than two years of buildouts. Once an airplane has been wired for service, debt service on the installation and money to cover ongoing costs become the primary concerns. Momentum may carry onboard access through this bumpy period.

In this 35,000-foot overview, we'll look at the history of in-flight Internet, the state of the art, and where things are going, with a tour of the technology employed today and tomorrow.

Where it began

Once upon a time, Boeing had a brilliant idea to combine its satellite savvy and plane-building expertise into a separate business division that would carry high-speed signals from geostationary satellites into receivers that it would custom-fit into its own and others' planes. "Connexion by Boeing" was its name.

The problem? Boeing predicated the business on having substantial presence in the US market where record profits were being earned, and it signed agreements with three airlines a few months before September 11, 2001. The collapse of the airline industry and the larger economy after the terrorist attacks on that date led Boeing's partners to retreat from the Connexion deal, which undermined the financial viability of the offering. Boeing then refocused on over-water, long-haul flights, which seemed like the lowest-hanging fruit.

But Connexion had other problems. While bandwidth wasn't a problem‚ with reported speeds of about 5Mbps down and 1Mbps up per plane‚ installation and ongoing expenses were an issue. Initial installations could take weeks, which translates into money lost from a productive plane on which a lease is being paid, and total installation cost could reach $500,000 per plane, according to contemporary reports.

Boeing's retrofits eventually became faster, but they couldn't get around the weight of the gear plus its drag, which added up to an effective several hundred pounds. This placed a heavy burden on Internet revenue from each flight; if a few dozen people on every plane didn't pony up for access, Connexion was a net loss to carry.

Boeing also had to bear the massive cost of transponder leases. As I'll explain later, Connexion used Ku-band satellites, each of which can have dozens of transponders, all pointed toward an optimal region of the globe. For better capacity and coverage, Boeing reportedly leased 150 up/downlink pairs of transponders at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars a year. (Boeing never confirmed this figure, which may be overstated.)

Pricing was troublesome. I never thought Boeing was overcharging for the kind of serious business user they were targeting for long-haul flights (from 6 to 14 hours), but there was a lot of carping about the cost. At launch in 2004, service was tiered between $15 for flights under three hours and $30 for six-hour-and-longer trips. Several months before the service was discontinued, pricing switched to a weird model for continuous access: $10 for 1 hour, $15 for 2 hours, and $18 for 3 hours; $26 bought 24 hours of access across any Connexion-equipped flights.

The cost to airlines‚ some of which was apparently absorbed by Boeing‚ led to few planes having the service installed at first. The final count was in the hundreds when Boeing pulled the plug in late 2006. The cost to passengers seemed to keep usage relatively low, and without knowing whether any given plane might have service, customers couldn't expect access, which might have driven up usage. Lufthansa was the most committed airline, with all its dozens of long-haul craft set up before Connexion shut down.

It didn't help that Boeing's service launched while WiFi was still ramping up as a ubiquitous mobile feature. (Some aircraft even included Ethernet jacks for the service.) Smartphones and organizers largely lacked WiFi, or burned battery life quickly if they used it. Laptops had WiFi, but users didn't have the same obsession with always staying online.

An early Tenzing connection kit

A new beginning

While it was clear that satellite-based Internet access was workable, the cost structure Boeing had established was not. As the industry shook itself out, and firms like Panasonic Avionics and OnAir also tried to figure out models that would work, the FCC finalized a plan to transform access in American skies.

The FCC had approved limited air-to-ground (ATG) radiotelephone service in the 1980s for in-flight calling, and then offered licenses to six firms in 1990. Few launched commercially. In the end, only AirFone‚ ultimately run by a division of Verizon‚ was left standing, charging dollars per minute for calls and low-speed dial-up data. Its use of a sliver of bandwidth was inefficient in two directions: as an analog service, it was capable of handling only 10 calls at a time, making poor use of the spectrum; by the end of its life, only two to three calls were made on each flight. Those seatback phones were becoming as redundant by the mid-2000s as pay phones in airports.

The FCC decided to auction off the 4MHz (in the 850MHz band) allotted to this service for digital air-to-ground use to provide services to passengers and airlines. It was assumed that Internet service would be the primary purpose, supplemented by onboard cellular base stations (so-called picocells) potentially providing voice, text, and data links for hardware without built-in WiFi. But airlines might piggyback on the system for non-critical communications, too.

In 2006, the FCC created a wacky kind of auction in which bids were accepted on different plans for splitting the band up into pieces. The winner was the most sensible offering: one firm paid for 3MHz and another for 1MHz. (The bandwidth was divided into 1.5MHz and 0.5MHz paired uplink/downlink channels.)

Aircell won the larger chunk. The firm had spent nearly 20 years trying to convince the FCC to allocate air-to-ground spectrum for provide greater competition and better utility. JetBlue's LiveTV in-flight entertainment division won the 1MHz, and we're still wondering what they'll do with it. (From a more exact business perspective, Aircell received a significant investment before the auction by a private-investment firm that created a separate spectrum-holding company to bid on the auction. That company won, and Aircell has assignment rights.)

Air-to-ground communications have a variety of advantages over air-to-space connections. Aircell had already built a network for general aviation (non-commercial, private) phone and other services, so it had experience. It was able to use existing cellular facilities used by other telecoms with antennas pointing up instead of around. And Aircell could own its equipment instead of lease usage, as with satellites.

Even though the license limited Aircell to the United States, that still encompassed a huge number of planes and flights and it kept the company from having to build a global business initially. Still, Aircell had to convince airlines that it could deliver on performance, generate revenue, and, potentially, fill more seats at higher prices for as long as Internet access was a bonus amenity offered only by specific airlines. (If it's a success and most planes have access, it's hard to advertise the feature to attract customers from other airlines.)

In November 2008, Aircell launched its service as Gogo Inflight Internet with nary a thigh-high white boot in sight. I was on the inaugural Virgin America flight, and filed this report from the air for BoingBoing TV. In between gaping at supporting actors from 30 Rock, trying to identify YouTube celebrities, and drinking non-virgin Virgin drinks, we found that even a planeful of journalists were able to connect to the 'Net most of the time.

It wasn't long before the service expanded.

Aircell's thousand-plane coverage

Virgin America was Aircell's launch airline, and it put the service on its couple dozen planes rather quickly. AirTran (currently being acquired by Southwest) later joined Virgin in (un)wiring its entire fleet of 138 mainline planes. Alaska Airlines also went for a full deployment for its 115 mainline planes; it's now about halfway there. (Mainline planes are the larger jets, like 737s or Airbus A320s used for regional and national travel. They complement regional aircraft, both jets and turboprops, with smaller passenger capacity that are used for short and medium hops.)

There's little else left up for grabs in the domestic market, as all carriers with over 50 mainline planes are signed up with one party or another.

A bigger coup for Aircell was a commitment from Delta, which eventually agreed to put Gogo on its entire mainline fleet of now 550 planes, accomplished earlier this year. American Airlines came along more slowly, first agreeing to put service in about 300 of 620 planes. In early May, however, American expanded that commitment to nearly its entire fleet. At least 200 planes are currently equipped, and all should be set with WiFi service by mid-2012.

United and US Airways have a small number of kitted craft. United's fleet of 13 cross-country 757-200s have had the Gogo service for some time, and US Airways put the service on a seeming trial on 50 Airbus 321s. (United has a total of 450 mainline planes, and US Airways nearly 320.)

Air Canada also has some in-flight service on an unknown number of its 37 Airbus A319s. The service is only legal to operate on portions of routes within the United States.

This accounts for the nearly 1,100 planes that Aircell totals up on its site. It's likely to increase that total to as many as 1,500 planes by the end of 2011, but current commitments put it to under 2,000 through 2012. Delta's regional planes (about 220) will be equipped by the end of 2011; the rest of Alaska will come this year; and Frontier will put service on 32 regional jets.

The upper limit, of course, is the number of planes actually in service. In 2010, US airlines had about 3,700 mainline jets and 2,600 regional jets and other types of craft. Regional jets generally have too little capacity for inflight Internet to make financial sense; Frontier and Delta are the two frontrunners experimenting with those smaller planes. (Hundreds of planes remain parked in desert landing strips, mothballed and possibly never to fly again. More may join them as airlines push a strategy of smaller fleets to push up scarcity and increase prices based on demand.)

Aircell's CEO Michael Small told me that regional jets of 70 or more seats fit into a profile where it might make sense to add service, partly because it completes a network like Delta, giving flyers service from one end of a trip to another on the same airline. That increases usage across the airline and leads to purchases of day passes and subscriptions. Smaller planes would be less profitable, but Aircell has its broadband service on 500 private planes (and an older voice and data service on 4,500 others), so it can be done.

While Aircell's license is only good for the United States, it expects that if the stars align it will partner with firms in Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean, just as the Airfone service operated. Aircell's Small said the traffic relative to the United States is low enough that the company has to find the right partner to make the business case. From a deployment perspective, though, it wouldn't be difficult at all.

There are also a couple thousand planes that routinely fly over water on international routes, and several thousand craft in use domestically and internationally over land. Satellite service will drive those markets‚ if it can prove viable. Which brings us to pricing.

Aircell pricing

Aircell's greatest achievement may be a single pricing structure across all the airlines with which it's partnered. Its biggest mistake may be the crazily large number of pricing options: 10 separate dollar amounts are listed on its pricing page. This is too many for any normal human being to integrate into decision making.

(One tip: if you're going to use Gogo on a flight, set up an account with credit-card information before you go using a computer's browser. It's much simpler to do so while you're not squeezed into a seat, and you don't have to expose your credit-card number to seatmates. You'll especially appreciate having an account set up when you use Gogo with a mobile device, like a smartphone. You can also install a BlackBerry or iOS app for a simpler connection process.)

Let's take this category by category:

Unlimited service. Aircell offers four kinds of unlimited monthly services. For $35 a month with automatic renewal, you can use any number of sessions on all airlines. If you want to buy 30 days at a time, it's $30 for a single airline or $40 for all airlines with no automatic renewal. For mobile devices, 30 days costs just $20.

24-hour pass. For $13, you can use any number of sessions on all equipped planes. If you have at least two flight segments and any are longer than 1.5 hours, this is cheaper than buying two separate sessions.

Laptop or tablet session. Gogo separates this out by duration: you pay $5 for flights of up 1.5 hours (or 650 miles), $10 for 1.5 to 3 hours (up to 1,150 miles), and $13 for anything over 3 hours or a longer distance.

Smartphones and small mobile devices, like the iPod touch. Gogo apparently characterizes the iPad and other tablets as not being "mobile devices," for which you have to pay full freight. The Mobile Pass for smartphones et al. is $5 for flights 1.5 hours or shorter, and $8 otherwise.

Aircell once had a cheap redeye option for overnight flights, but it's no longer listed.

On a given flight, you're only presented with valid options, which could still total five on a laptop or tablet and four on a mobile device. Some airlines indicate at the time of booking whether WiFi is available on a flight, and some allow prepurchase of a session along with a ticket and discounts. Delta, for instance, sells the $13 24-hour pass for $11, limited to Delta flights.

The missing component in all these pricing options is bundling: if you're traveling with multiple bits of hardware, such as a smartphone, tablet, and laptop (don't laugh, because you know you've already done it), you could pay a separate fee for each.

Aircell says that with a laptop session or plan, you can switch between a laptop and a mobile device or tablet so long as you use only one active session at a time. You have to log out from one device to log in to the other. Mobile plans and passes can only be used among mobile devices.

Growing interest

Even while Aircell was setting up its network in the time between winning the FCC auction in 2006 and launching commercial service in 2008, other firms were trying to get their satellite-based projects off the ground.

The most notable of those in the US is Row 44, a firm full of executives from the satellite and chipmaking worlds, which decided to focus on making satellite-backed airborne service work in a limited area. By restricting service to just North America, the company reduced transponder costs enormously. It also has told me several times over the years that its gear and antenna are substantially lighter weight and have less drag than Connexion's, while it was able to ratchet up bandwidth substantially by using more efficient equipment.

The company started up in 2004, and it took until 2009 to begin trials. It initially garnered commitments from Alaska Airlines and Southwest, but lost Alaska to Aircell after long delays in deployment. Alaska flies a large number of overwater flights to both Alaska and Mexico, and Aircell wasn't a perfect fit, but apparently close enough, and it added several ground stations in that state. In a similar vein, geostationary satellite signals can barely reach most of Alaska, so ground stations likely provide more consistent and better service than a satellite approach.

Southwest expects all its 550 planes to have Row 44's service enabled by 2013, and hasn't announced milestones for service. For now, the price is $5 per flight regardless of duration. There are no day passes or other discount. That's blissfully simple.

Elsewhere in the States, JetBlue still mystifies me, if not other observers. The firm's LiveTV division, noted above, has 1MHz of air-to-ground spectrum over which they could offer certain kinds of services to passengers, but which, so far, has not been deployed for commercial aviation. It seems to be using it, at least in part, for private planes. (The auction requirements for the band had a specific buildout mandate for the larger band that Aircell won. JetBlue's sliver, which cost about $7 million, was exempted from a build requirement. But the license expires in 2016, at which point the FCC can demand reassignment if JetBlue hasn't produced a worthwhile-enough service.)

JetBlue has chosen, instead, to focus on satellite, which might make sense since LiveTV already uses a satellite system to pull in television programming for the airlines it serves. JetBlue's announcement in April was that it would hold out for a Ka-band satellite link, which requires waiting for a particular bird to be lofted this summer. JetBlue says it will start up the service in 2012 on its own planes, followed by those of Continental. But that may be an optimistic launch window.

If I sound dubious about LiveTV, it's because they spent a few years flying a single plane using the old narrowband analog AirFone technology to allow limited BlackBerry-based email, text-messaging, and instant messaging as a demonstration of Internet service. The BetaBlue plane was an odd throwback, and JetBlue flew it for far too long, finally abandoning the approach in mid-2010.

JetBlue's service will let it expand more easily outside North America, as satellites know no borders, although each country's air authority has to provide specific certification of airworthiness for any electronic gear and external antennas installed. In practice, that process has come a long way as more providers offer satellite-based services.

Share this story

69 Reader Comments

I like inflight wifi, but to me, when a flight is shorter than about 1.5 hours, it's not worth a large $$ layout. You lose the 15-20 min on each end of the flight when they want you to shut everything down, then what's left. I took advantage of a promo for my first session--I clicked on an HP ad and they "sponsored" my flight's wifi. I liked that, and it got me to spring for a session. But my next flights fell into that nearly 1.5 hours but not quite and I didn't feel like paying for a short internet session.

I like that it's there as an option--there are times when I would pay quite a bit (we're talking less than 10 or 20 dollars mostly). So as I see it, they need to get many folks using it (ie thru "free" firsttime sessions to get folks registered and using the service). They need to get it on lots of planes so folks can expect that it's there; and they need to figure out how to make it more palatable.

For example, I would almost certainly opt to pay an extra fee when booking a ticket, if that meant I could get wifi the whole trip thru. Flights, airports (if not already free--many are not, wankers).

If folks are allowed to have wifi running, what's to stop people from using their 3G connections? We know cell phones work on planes, but do carriers go after people who are obviously traveling at 530mph from tower to tower??

> However, higher frequencies can also require higher power and are subject to more kinds of interference and absorption.

Actually, higher frequencies don't require as much power as lower frequencies to achieve the same energy transfer. However, from a practical standpoint, your statement is correct *because* of the interference and absorption issues. So, largely accurate statement with misleading semantics.

> However, higher frequencies can also require higher power and are subject to more kinds of interference and absorption.

Actually, higher frequencies don't require as much power as lower frequencies to achieve the same energy transfer. However, from a practical standpoint, your statement is correct *because* of the interference and absorption issues. So, largely accurate statement with misleading semantics.

Right. Over the same distance, you need higher power to achieve the same range typically, but not exclusively. With the same power and two sets of frequencies one lower and one higher, the higher frequency signal will attenuate more rapidly, thus having lower range.

Tangentially, I happened to be in Melbourne's Tullamarine airport, waiting for a domestic flight to be ready for boarding, when my iPad reported an open Wifi provider -- I tried to access it, but it turned out not to be free at all, but $AU5.00 per HOUR to connect to Qantas Network. Christ, what a rip-off. This was at the domestic terminal, not the international area.

What irks me intensely about gadgets on planes, is that there is this overwhelming paranoia that 'electronic items' can adversely affect aircraft avionics during take-off and landing. All well and good I suppose, EXCEPT for the glaring idiocy that -most- devices these days only TURN OFF THE SCREEN, they're still 'running' -- they even get people to turn off their Kindle e-book readers.

"Oh no, you're reading a BOOK on a GADGET, you'll CRASH THE PLANE!!!!!!"

Sigh.

Star Wars: Kindle Edition

Quote:

"A jangled shiver passed through the Jedi's trained senses, it was as though several hundred passengers all turned on their Kindle at once, and downloaded a book each, and fried the Boeing Republic Avionics, which were sensitive, fatally so, to the deleterious emanations from those unthinking, and now very dead, passengers."

This rant would be meatier if I could go off the rails completely and complain about the security checks on the way in to the terminal, but we've all heard those stories before, eh!

So the big reason I generally don't use in-flight internet is that most airplanes don't have anywhere for me to plug in my laptop. While I do get good battery life; it's also drained from using it in the terminal (where if you travel during business travel times, power outlets are often already claimed by a dozen salespeople/consultants.) Hence, by the time I'm on the plane, my battery is usually close to dead.

If there were more ubiquitous power outlets on airplanes, I would likely use the in-flight internet access as well. But there aren't, so I usually just work filling out expense forms. Or just read a book (the dead tree kind, not the kindle kind.)

So the big reason I generally don't use in-flight internet is that most airplanes don't have anywhere for me to plug in my laptop. While I do get good battery life; it's also drained from using it in the terminal (where if you travel during business travel times, power outlets are often already claimed by a dozen salespeople/consultants.) Hence, by the time I'm on the plane, my battery is usually close to dead.)

This is fortunately changing. I fly Virgin America as often as I can in part because they make flying as close to joyful as any airline in this country can, but also because they have outlets on every plane. In first class, each seat has its own AC and USB outlet. In coach, there are two outlets and USB chargers in every row between each seat. (The power, as on most planes, cycles through a pattern of all the outlets, so you can't draw a charge all the time, but you can most of the time.)

If you use SeatGuru, you can find out which planes have outlets on which airlines, and then, even better, which seats. If you fly American, for instance, some of their planes have a scattershot outlet pattern across about 30% of coach, and you can book a seat to be next to an outlet.

If you use SeatGuru, you can find out which planes have outlets on which airlines, and then, even better, which seats. If you fly American, for instance, some of their planes have a scattershot outlet pattern across about 30% of coach, and you can book a seat to be next to an outlet.

Yeah; I fly every week for work and the travel agents we use (AmEx travel) will automatically seat us in rows that have power outlets. Problem with that is that everyone does this; so if you aren't booking your flights 3 months in advance, those seats are almost always taken on the "business flights" (Sunday night, Monday morning and Thursday/Friday night.) Best you can usually do is hope that you win the lottery for a first class upgrade.

I don't have to worry about that traveling out of Detroit, since they charge for WiFi in the terminal. No thanks, I'll just use my smartphone and then pay on the plane.

Most airports do actually (Pittsburgh is the only one left that I know of that doesn't,) because the majority of travelers willing to pay for internet access will just expense it to their employer.

Really? LAS has had free wifi since they installed it years ago.

It varies. Some of the biggest US airports now have free Wi-Fi (Denver, SFO) or are talking about it (Atlanta). Most of the second-tier international airports in the US (Portland's PDX), and most of the regional mostly end-spoke airports (Sacramento, Phoenix) have free service.

You can also get paid service cheaply at pretty much every for-fee US and Canadian airport. Boingo Wireless has a division that operates Wi-Fi (both free and fee), and has cross-usage deals with all the other operators. They have a $10 per month North American rate for unlimited laptop use, with no cancellation penalty. I've turned this on and off when I travel, as it also encompasses quite a lot of hotel and for-fee retail/restaurant/cafe service (before Starbucks and McDs went free). So $10 per month to have access without paying $8 to $15 a pop in each airport or hotel night? It's a steal.

It varies. Some of the biggest US airports now have free Wi-Fi (Denver, SFO) or are talking about it (Atlanta). Most of the second-tier international airports in the US (Portland's PDX), and most of the regional mostly end-spoke airports (Sacramento, Phoenix) have free service.

I do have to say, I don't fly out west much so my experience there is limited. But the big hubs in the midwest/east (Dallas, Chicago, Atlanta, Miami, Charlotte, Memphis, NYC and DC) all charge. Boingo is by far the most prevalent, but it's by no means ubiquitous.

O'Hare is by far the worst, btw (funny how it's basically just the worst airport in the country at everything.) I don't even try to use the wireless there anymore; I've paid for it a number of times only to have it be so slow that it's unusable for even simple web browsing. Don't know if it's a bad implementation or if it's that O'Hare is just that crowded...

O'Hare is by far the worst, btw (funny how it's basically just the worst airport in the country at everything.) I don't even try to use the wireless there anymore; I've paid for it a number of times only to have it be so slow that it's unusable for even simple web browsing. Don't know if it's a bad implementation or if it's that O'Hare is just that crowded...

Let's not forget that it's nearly impossible to find an AC outlet in C concourse. I think the only ones available are at the couple of "Courtesy Charge" locations which are always filled and never near your gate.As for the outlets on a plane? I've heard of them, but I've yet to actually see one. I only fly 2-3 times a year, but it's usually a 3hr flight so it's not like I'm riding on puddle-jumpers.

Oh yeah, that reminds me... Since United and Continental are supposed to be completely merged by the end of 2012, are they really going to have half of their planes using one system and the other half using another? If the airlines really wanted to attract users and make money on the system, they should just include the service with the price of the ticket. I would imagine that most travelers aren't really going to be anal about a $5 price difference between one airline and another if that $5 gets you free wifi.

It varies. Some of the biggest US airports now have free Wi-Fi (Denver, SFO) or are talking about it (Atlanta). Most of the second-tier international airports in the US (Portland's PDX), and most of the regional mostly end-spoke airports (Sacramento, Phoenix) have free service.

I do have to say, I don't fly out west much so my experience there is limited. But the big hubs in the midwest/east (Dallas, Chicago, Atlanta, Miami, Charlotte, Memphis, NYC and DC) all charge. Boingo is by far the most prevalent, but it's by no means ubiquitous.

You are sadly in the swath that does. There are an increasing number of large airports that find that free is more amenable as an amenity. Atlanta wants to switch, but last I'd read, it would mean losing a few hundred thousand dollars a year. Eventually that money will disappear, in any case, as people used tethered 3G or 4G plans to avoid the charge. Going free makes more sense as you can market at people that way.

As far as Boingo, they have no-fee roaming agreements across nearly every North American airport. If you have a Boingo plan, you can use nearly every US/Canada airport as part of the $10/month unlimited laptop fee (cheaper for mobiles). There's no surcharge for non-Boingo airports.

"Oh no, you're reading a BOOK on a GADGET, you'll CRASH THE PLANE!!!!!!"

Up until recently, they all had cellular radios. So if you're going to make people turn off their cell phones, it only makes sense to make them turn off their Kindles too.

Except for the fact that it makes little sense to require people to turn off their cell phones anymore.

Well yeah, I agree with that. I was just saying, if you're going to have the rules, might as well apply them fairly.

Like many, many requirements when you're flying (window shades up on approach and takeoff, bags under seats, remaining seated and belted while taxi-ing) the requirement not to use "portable devices" is a good requirement, but the reason given is bullshit, to avoid scaring the passengers.

The real reason you can't use small, weighty pieces of metal when the aircraft is rapidly accelerating or decelerating, is because if (fortune forbear) there was an incident, all those hand-held devices would become un-held missiles, bouncing around the cabin and causing (further) injury.

That, and the fact that if something happens, your life may well depend on being able to hear instructions, use both hands, and not be carrying anything "valuable" that you attempt to instinctively carry with you.

It has *absolutely nothing to do* with "navigational equipment". But no flight crew is ever going to say "window shades up, please, so if we crash you can see where the flames are", and likewise they are never going to say "put your laptops and phones away because we don't want you losing your SteveGrip (TM) and beheading people with them if we crash."

The prices still need to come waaaay down. On an American Airlines flight from Toronto to Phoenix last year, WiFi would have cost $30 for the entire five hour flight. I can get a *month* of internet at home for the same price. I just couldn't justify the fees. I think I may have been willing to pay $1 per hour. Another problem is that the seats are so damn close you can barely open a laptop and use it comfortably.

Unless someone has a fixed screen netbook or perhaps a version of an Ipad; I would strongly suggest not using most devices on board something such as an airplane. I can't tell you of how many "cases" I've witnessed over the years where a laptop was damaged in flight - such as having the hinge overstressed or even literally break. To make matters worse; I've seen it happen on laptops costing far less than 1k or well in excess of some 15k.

As one would most naturally expect - most laptops aren't covered by this type of incident. Plus hav fun selling it to ones insurance company - along with the costs of restoring the data even IF properly backed up.

Even to more economical travelers stuck to the road or perhaps even a bus that offers WiFi - the same type of damage can occur on the road as well.

Unless someone has a fixed screen netbook or perhaps a version of an Ipad; I would strongly suggest not using most devices on board something such as an airplane. I can't tell you of how many "cases" I've witnessed over the years where a laptop was damaged in flight - such as having the hinge overstressed or even literally break. To make matters worse; I've seen it happen on laptops costing far less than 1k or well in excess of some 15k.

As one would most naturally expect - most laptops aren't covered by this type of incident. Plus hav fun selling it to ones insurance company - along with the costs of restoring the data even IF properly backed up.

Even to more economical travelers stuck to the road or perhaps even a bus that offers WiFi - the same type of damage can occur on the road as well.

NOT to mention causing the plane, train, or automobile to crash! Darn interference.

[...]The real reason you can't use small, weighty pieces of metal when the aircraft is rapidly accelerating or decelerating, is because if (fortune forbear) there was an incident, all those hand-held devices would become un-held missiles, bouncing around the cabin and causing (further) injury.

That, and the fact that if something happens, your life may well depend on being able to hear instructions, use both hands, and not be carrying anything "valuable" that you attempt to instinctively carry with you.

It has *absolutely nothing to do* with "navigational equipment". But no flight crew is ever going to say "window shades up, please, so if we crash you can see where the flames are", and likewise they are never going to say "put your laptops and phones away because we don't want you losing your SteveGrip (TM) and beheading people with them if we crash."

I never thought about it like this, but that makes perfect sense. The funny thing is: flight attendants must believe the corporate line themselves, because they are quite happy to let you hold your phone/ipad/book in your lap during take-off and landing.

I think they should cite these reasons above in the in-flight announcements (perhaps not mentioning "where the flames are"), because it's less likely to elicit the "this is BS" response from the techno-literate.

"Oh no, you're reading a BOOK on a GADGET, you'll CRASH THE PLANE!!!!!!"

Up until recently, they all had cellular radios. So if you're going to make people turn off their cell phones, it only makes sense to make them turn off their Kindles too.

Except for the fact that it makes little sense to require people to turn off their cell phones anymore.

Well yeah, I agree with that. I was just saying, if you're going to have the rules, might as well apply them fairly.

Like many, many requirements when you're flying (window shades up on approach and takeoff, bags under seats, remaining seated and belted while taxi-ing) the requirement not to use "portable devices" is a good requirement, but the reason given is bullshit, to avoid scaring the passengers.

The real reason you can't use small, weighty pieces of metal when the aircraft is rapidly accelerating or decelerating, is because if (fortune forbear) there was an incident, all those hand-held devices would become un-held missiles, bouncing around the cabin and causing (further) injury.

That, and the fact that if something happens, your life may well depend on being able to hear instructions, use both hands, and not be carrying anything "valuable" that you attempt to instinctively carry with you.

It has *absolutely nothing to do* with "navigational equipment". But no flight crew is ever going to say "window shades up, please, so if we crash you can see where the flames are", and likewise they are never going to say "put your laptops and phones away because we don't want you losing your SteveGrip (TM) and beheading people with them if we crash."

Except for older tech possibility once upon a time EXACTLY! So that KAL flight shotdown near a secret facility was not gameboying? Jusy gambling- gamboling?

Correction: Gogo Inflight Internet (Aircell) launched with American Airlines back in July 2008 on about 12 aircraft. While Virgin America was first fleet-wide, they were not Aircell's launch airline. Delta was the next commitment, then making Virgin America the third airline added. By commitment, I'm referencing the fact that Delta was the second airline to have Gogo's service public on an aircraft.

One thing about the mobile service, how do they make sure that customers don't just tether their laptops to their phones and access the cheaper mobile service through that?

Because tethering works through 3G, not wifi. Enabling tethering, switches off incoming Wifi on the mobile device. Therefore given that in-air internet services work via the Wifi part of the phone, there is no way you could get the inflight Wifi and then tether it to a laptop.

Correction: Gogo Inflight Internet (Aircell) launched with American Airlines back in July 2008 on about 12 aircraft. While Virgin America was first fleet-wide, they were not Aircell's launch airline. Delta was the next commitment, then making Virgin America the third airline added. By commitment, I'm referencing the fact that Delta was the second airline to have Gogo's service public on an aircraft.

I can see your order of things, too. The American deployment was technically a test, not a pilot launch nor commitment, and American didn't step up for some time thereafter. I don't count it as the launch, as American could have pulled it at any time.

While Delta had signed a contract, they had a rocky road to getting the first planes up and then smoothing out the install process. Virgin America was the launch airline with the service running on a production basis with a contract commitment.

But I suppose the specific order isn't so relevant in that those three have full-fleet commitments or deployments, and are still flying!